IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?
There’s something to be said for this. And here it is.
The Whistleblower Could Teach Mueller Some Things About Writing (HuffPo)
ml1 said:
Let's say the top secret White House archive is revealed to contain a transcript of a call from Trump to Putin, in which Trump states it would be a favor to him if Putin could release any info that the KGB may have collected on Bernie Sanders' Soviet Union visit in the 80s.
After "naked pictures of Trump" (which Devin Nunes claimed the Democrats were seeking), the last thing we need is a "Bernie Pee Tape".
DaveSchmidt said:
There’s something to be said for this. And here it is.
The Whistleblower Could Teach Mueller Some Things About Writing (HuffPo)
Also, this in today's Times:
paulsurovell said:
The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.
A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.
And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.
Here's a taste of what the Republicans will push:
Thank you for being a voice of reason. The last thing we need is Russiagate, the sequel. The Dems already gave Trump a big gift. No need to tie a bow on top.
nan said:
Thank you for being a voice of reason. The last thing we need is Russiagate, the sequel. The Dems already gave Trump a big gift. No need to tie a bow on top.
why are you against an inquiry into the allegations? So you wanted an investigation into whether Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, but you don't want an investigation into whether Trump tried to extort a foreign country to smear an opponent.
Okay.
ml1 said:
why are you against an inquiry into the allegations? So you wanted an investigation into whether Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, but you don't want an investigation into whether Trump tried to extort a foreign country to smear an opponent.
Okay.
Epstein should be investigated, but never will, at least during our lifetimes. There are lots of rabbit holes and they lead to lots of animals much bigger than bunnies. What would an investigation on Trump reveal? That he's a narcissistic, bloviating elitiest who does not think the rules apply to him? The only people on earth who don't know that are his supporters and they are going to defend him even stronger as he is attacked on such a flimsy accusation. From what I have read of the transcript, he made all kinds of comments but did not directly confront the guy. It's not black and white. He acted inappropriately, but it will be difficult to pin him with a real crime.
The whole thing will just be like a Pandora's box. You and your friend, nohero don't believe the stuff Paul (or I occasionally) have posted about Ukraine in the past few years. But, you were wrong about that and the stuff that happened in Ukraine in the past decade or so is complicated and messy and extremely corrupt and involves Biden, Clinton, McCain, The CIA, and a ton of other people--in a way-similar to Epstein, but not the same kind of crime. I actually would like to see a real investigation there, but like the Epstein case, that will not happen until long after I'm dead. In the meantime, the Republicans will launch a huge semi-real, to sort-of-real, to sometimes-real investigation and it will obscure any real attempt to defeat Trump in 2020 based on issues important to ordinary people, like healthcare and the environment.
Instead, there will be lots of blather and grandstanding and Rachel Maddow will get her grove back. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar will be putting on their prosecutor's hats and trying to revive their sagging campaigns through the ghost of Sarah Bernhardt. Cory Booker will make his eyes really, really big. Pete Buttigieg will do 25 JFK taking the SAT/GMAT impressions. Adam Schifft already gave some exhaulted toned Attack on Democracy spew--I could not listen past the first five words--I am constructing my analysis by looking at his scrunched up weasel face. Nancy Pelosi will probably don an ermine coat and crown. The centrist establishment Dems will get all the attention, even after it fails to remove His Orange Pestilence. So, this will benefit them and it will benefit Trump. The only beneift that could come out of this is the possibility we might get rid of Joe Biden's campaign, but even that is not assured. It will not benefit ordinary working people who have been ignored by both parties for decades and who are continuing to slide into 3rd world misery and despair with growing wealth inequality and failed healthcare.
Nothing but a big sh** show.
this thread is turning into a cesspool
I might as well spend my time over at Infowars.
drummerboy said:
this thread is turning into a cesspool
I might as well spend my time over at Infowars.
There's not an actual "filter" feature on MOL, but once you've determined there's very little chance of any constructive engagement coming from a poster, there's nothing preventing manual filtering. For instance, I've been in the Rose Garden thread a vanishingly small number of times since I accepted the OP there is unable to actually engage with anyone, and I think I've responded to the OP there maybe twice in the last year.
There's a lot of genuinely interesting political news happening now. It'd be a shame to pass that up in favor of stupid conspiracy theories about DNC psychic poll manipulations or rehashed WH talking points on Ukraine.
---
I see the first subpoenas and depositions have gone out. What testimony are people most looking forward to hearing? I'd like to hear what former ambassador Yovanovitch has to say.
yeah - it's just disconcerting to see seemingly intelligent, lefty types to get so bogged down in this nonsense.
At the moment, I'm trying to figure out the import of the resignation of this Volker guy. I think it's bad, maybe very bad, for Trump, but I'm not sure.
nan said:
The whole thing will just be like a Pandora's box. You and your friend, nohero don't believe the stuff Paul (or I occasionally) have posted about Ukraine in the past few years. But, you were wrong about that and the stuff that happened in Ukraine in the past decade or so is complicated and messy and extremely corrupt and involves Biden, Clinton, McCain, The CIA, and a ton of other people--in a way-similar to Epstein, but not the same kind of crime. I actually would like to see a real investigation there, but like the Epstein case, that will not happen until long after I'm dead. In the meantime, the Republicans will launch a huge semi-real, to sort-of-real, to sometimes-real investigation and it will obscure any real attempt to defeat Trump in 2020 based on issues important to ordinary people, like healthcare and the environment.
I'm pretty sure I've never commented on anything you've written about Ukraine (or even read any of it for that matter), so I'm not sure where your comment is coming from. I can't be wrong about something I never commented on. But as I've already replied to Paul, what Biden did or didn't do isn't even relevant to the accusations against Trump. Even assuming Biden is guilty of something, a president leaning on a foreign leader (with the implication that favors will be returned) to launch an investigation of a political rival is, or at least should be beyond the pale for a president.
ml1 said:
I'm pretty sure I've never commented on anything you've written about Ukraine (or even read any of it for that matter), so I'm not sure where your comment is coming from. I can't be wrong about something I never commented on. But as I've already replied to Paul, what Biden did or didn't do isn't even relevant to the accusations against Trump. Even assuming Biden is guilty of something, a president leaning on a foreign leader (with the implication that favors will be returned) to launch an investigation of a political rival is, or at least should be beyond the pale for a president.
Trump does things beyond the pale six times before breakfast, and you will find this one is not as Adam Schift promises. We need to look at the conditions that led to anyone thinking Trump was a good choice in the first place and focus on changing those conditions instead of trying to fight in an unwinnable battle in quicksand.
If you think corruption is limited to the Republicans, you are about to very surprised (or very in denial).
nan said:
If you think corruption is limited to the Republicans, you are about to very surprised (or very in denial).
Easy answer. I don't.
ml1 said:
Easy answer. I don't.
You will soon be finding out how much you don't. Buckle up; it's going to be a bumpy ride.
nan said:
You will soon be finding out how much you don't. Buckle up; it's going to be a bumpy ride.
?
nan said:
If you think corruption is limited to the Republicans, you are about to very surprised (or very in denial).
Republicans and libertarians are pigs, all of them, you included
basil said:
Republicans and libertarians are pigs, all of them, you included
What's with the personal attack? And which one do you think I am, a Republican or a libertarian? And what have I said to place me in one of those camps?
nohero said:
Paul, Tulsi flipped on impeachment.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/27/tulsi-gabbard-flips-backs-narrowly-focused-impeach/
Better check your emails for updates before posting further.
Actually there's a pretty big overlap between my position and Tulsi's (see bold portion below):
paulsurovell said:
The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out. A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.
And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2019-09-27-gabbard-statement-impeachment-inquiry
Press Release
Gabbard Statement on Impeachment Inquiry
September 27th, 2019
WASHINGTON, DC — Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic candidate for president, released the following statement in support of moving forward with the impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives:
“Up to this point, I have been opposed to pursuing impeachment because it will further divide our already badly divided country.
However, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukrainian President, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump’s comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in the government, will conclude that they can abuse their position for personal gain, without fear of accountability or consequences.
If we allow the president to abuse his or her power, then our society will rot from top down. We will turn into a Banana Republic, where people in positions of power—from the president all the way down to the traffic cop—will feel it's OK to abuse their power with no consequences.
This is not the kind of country that any of us want to see.
So it is unfortunate, but necessary, that I’m speaking in support of the inquiry into the President’s alleged abuse of power in relation to his interactions with Ukraine leaders. This inquiry must be swift, thorough, and narrowly-focused. It cannot be turned into a long, protracted partisan circus that will further divide our country and undermine our democracy.
Our campaign will remain focused on how we can stop engaging in regime change wars, stop the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, and invest the money wasted on those wars and weapons to meet the needs of the American people. We can’t allow a protracted impeachment process to further divide this country and distract from important issues that must be at the center of the debate in this campaign.”
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Paul, Tulsi flipped on impeachment.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/27/tulsi-gabbard-flips-backs-narrowly-focused-impeach/
Better check your emails for updates before posting further.
Actually there's a pretty big overlap between my position and Tulsi's (see bold portion below):
paulsurovell said:
The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out. A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.
And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2019-09-27-gabbard-statement-impeachment-inquiry
Press ReleaseGabbard Statement on Impeachment InquirySeptember 27th, 2019WASHINGTON, DC — Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic candidate for president, released the following statement in support of moving forward with the impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives:“Up to this point, I have been opposed to pursuing impeachment because it will further divide our already badly divided country.However, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukrainian President, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump’s comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in the government, will conclude that they can abuse their position for personal gain, without fear of accountability or consequences.If we allow the president to abuse his or her power, then our society will rot from top down. We will turn into a Banana Republic, where people in positions of power—from the president all the way down to the traffic cop—will feel it's OK to abuse their power with no consequences.This is not the kind of country that any of us want to see.So it is unfortunate, but necessary, that I’m speaking in support of the inquiry into the President’s alleged abuse of power in relation to his interactions with Ukraine leaders. This inquiry must be swift, thorough, and narrowly-focused. It cannot be turned into a long, protracted partisan circus that will further divide our country and undermine our democracy.Our campaign will remain focused on how we can stop engaging in regime change wars, stop the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, and invest the money wasted on those wars and weapons to meet the needs of the American people. We can’t allow a protracted impeachment process to further divide this country and distract from important issues that must be at the center of the debate in this campaign.”
This seems reasonable. She makes a good point about setting a precedent, although I'm not sure Trump did that, but he's generally not concerned with things not related to his own personal gain. Anyway, if they would do it quickly and focused without moving the goalposts, so we could get back to our regularly scheduled elections, it would be much less obtrusive--although Joe Biden will probably be toast no matter what--but that's a good thing.
The thing is once they get going. . . .
Has anyone posted this yet?
Biden Inc.
Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.
ml1 said:
I have another thought experiment for Paul. Let's say the top secret White House archive is revealed to contain a transcript of a call from Trump to Putin, in which Trump states it would be a favor to him if Putin could release any info that the KGB may have collected on Bernie Sanders' Soviet Union visit in the 80s. And implied that maybe he could do something about the sanctions on Russia.
Would that be an impeachable offense? Or does it merely warrant a sternly worded letter to Trump?
The short answer is that the Bernie hypothetical doesn't affect the reasons why I support censure over impeachment. By the way, you overstated the quid pro quo part of the hypothetical, since Zelensky didn't know about the delayed military aid until more than a month after the call.
And besides, Trump could probably get more info on Bernie's visit to the Soviet Union from the CIA and FBI than from the KGB.
As I've said previously, I'd be more than happy to support an impeachment of Trump for his many crimes against humanity (High Crimes) like withdrawal from the Paris Accord, Iran nuclear deal and INF treaty, removal of limits on methane releases, support for genocidal sanctions against Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia's genocidal bombing of Yemen, etc.
nan said:
Has anyone posted this yet?
Biden Inc.
Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.
that is a long article - what was the most damning takeaway from it?
None of the ventures appear to have been runaway successes, and Biden’s relatives have not been accused of criminal wrongdoing in their dealings.
nan said:
nan said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Paul, Tulsi flipped on impeachment.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/27/tulsi-gabbard-flips-backs-narrowly-focused-impeach/
Better check your emails for updates before posting further.
Actually there's a pretty big overlap between my position and Tulsi's (see bold portion below):
paulsurovell said:
The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out. A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.
And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2019-09-27-gabbard-statement-impeachment-inquiry
Press ReleaseGabbard Statement on Impeachment InquirySeptember 27th, 2019WASHINGTON, DC — Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic candidate for president, released the following statement in support of moving forward with the impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives:“Up to this point, I have been opposed to pursuing impeachment because it will further divide our already badly divided country.However, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukrainian President, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump’s comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in the government, will conclude that they can abuse their position for personal gain, without fear of accountability or consequences.If we allow the president to abuse his or her power, then our society will rot from top down. We will turn into a Banana Republic, where people in positions of power—from the president all the way down to the traffic cop—will feel it's OK to abuse their power with no consequences.This is not the kind of country that any of us want to see.So it is unfortunate, but necessary, that I’m speaking in support of the inquiry into the President’s alleged abuse of power in relation to his interactions with Ukraine leaders. This inquiry must be swift, thorough, and narrowly-focused. It cannot be turned into a long, protracted partisan circus that will further divide our country and undermine our democracy.Our campaign will remain focused on how we can stop engaging in regime change wars, stop the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, and invest the money wasted on those wars and weapons to meet the needs of the American people. We can’t allow a protracted impeachment process to further divide this country and distract from important issues that must be at the center of the debate in this campaign.”This seems reasonable. She makes a good point about setting a precedent, although I'm not sure Trump did that, but he's generally not concerned with things not related to his own personal gain. Anyway, if they would do it quickly and focused without moving the goalposts, so we could get back to our regularly scheduled elections, it would be much less obtrusive--although Joe Biden will probably be toast no matter what--but that's a good thing.
The thing is once they get going. . . .
Right, the "investigation" is going to dominate the election season for a very long time. Tulsi's call for a swift, narrowly-focused investigation is going to be ignored -- by both sides.
How will that be ignored? What Tulsi said is incredibly meaningless. Talk about a fluff statement. Has she detailed how to make the investigation swift and narrowly focused? What does that even mean? It's not that hard - we have most of the info already. Complaint about Trump went to Trump - we just need to figure out how that happened and what Trump and Barr did with it.
paulsurovell said:
As I've said previously, I'd be more than happy to support an impeachment of Trump for his many crimes against humanity (High Crimes) like withdrawal from the Paris Accord, Iran nuclear deal and INF treaty, removal of limits on methane releases, support for genocidal sanctions against Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia's genocidal bombing of Yemen, etc.
Which of the impeachments that you’d support above doesn’t dominate politics in an election season, doesn’t excite the Republican base, attracts independents and gets through the Senate?
ooh an impeachment that dominates politics in the election season, excites the Republican base, turns off independents and fails in the Senate etc. I'll bet Trump is salivating at the thought.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
As I've said previously, I'd be more than happy to support an impeachment of Trump for his many crimes against humanity (High Crimes) like withdrawal from the Paris Accord, Iran nuclear deal and INF treaty, removal of limits on methane releases, support for genocidal sanctions against Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia's genocidal bombing of Yemen, etc.
Which of the impeachments that you’d support above doesn’t dominate politics in an election season, doesn’t excite the Republican base, attracts independents and gets through the Senate?
ooh an impeachment that dominates politics in the election season, excites the Republican base, turns off independents and fails in the Senate etc. I'll bet Trump is salivating at the thought.
An investigation of any one of those high crimes would educate and raise the consciousness of the American people and make possible changes in the march toward catastrophe that we are on. There will be no meaningful changes resulting from the current investigations -- even if the Senate were to turn against Trump and put Mike Pence in the White House.
yes - that was dumb of Pelosi - what is currently at stake is our democracy and whether or not Trump can hide or silence witnesses to hide his corruption. And whatabouting Biden is also the wrong tactic - but people are easily taking the "right wing" bait on this one as well.
The role of Republicans letting Trump do Trump is probably the most frightening aspect of what's going on at the moment. This is fast moving - I believe people will fear their livelihood over protecting Trump at one point and much more will be revealed in the near future.
Paul - do you recommend rawstory as a "go to" independent news source. I'm looking at their homepage and most of the headlines seem pretty juvenile - like they just cherry pick dumb lines from everyone for sensationalism journalism.
I have another thought experiment for Paul. Let's say the top secret White House archive is revealed to contain a transcript of a call from Trump to Putin, in which Trump states it would be a favor to him if Putin could release any info that the KGB may have collected on Bernie Sanders' Soviet Union visit in the 80s. And implied that maybe he could do something about the sanctions on Russia.
Would that be an impeachable offense? Or does it merely warrant a sternly worded letter to Trump?